Mrs Suzy Bush v Intimates Lingerie LLP — 2023

Mrs Bush was dismissed in July 2020 and told on 14 July 2020 that her employment would end on 11 August 2020. She notified ACAS on 23 July 2020 and presented an online claim on 25 August 2020, but that claim was rejected on 23 September 2020 because she had named Sarah Charlesworth rather than Intimates Lingerie LLP, the respondent identified on the early conciliation certificate. The present claim was not lodged until 18 October 2021, so the hearing was confined to whether the unfair dismissal claim was out of time and, if so, whether time should be extended under s.111(2) ERA 1996.

The tribunal accepted Mrs Bush's evidence that, after the rejection of the first claim, she did not realise that she could start a fresh claim naming the correct respondent. It found that she had instead attempted to reopen the rejected case, beginning with an email on 20 October 2020, and that she believed she was pursuing the available route even though she had missed the 14-day reconsideration deadline. It also accepted that she had temporarily decided not to pursue the matter after finding temporary work, but later changed her mind.

Applying Palmer and Saunders v Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and Wall's Meat Co Ltd v Khan, the tribunal held that it was not reasonably practicable for Mrs Bush to present the claim in time because her ignorance of the option to submit a new claim was reasonable in the circumstances. It further held, by a narrow margin, that the claim was presented within a reasonable further period. The tribunal attached weight to the fact that Mrs Bush had already tried to revive the claim in October 2020, had received no substantive response until 22 November 2021, and was affected by the absence of any indication that urgent action was needed. The merits of the unfair dismissal claim were not decided at this hearing.